People, scientists, pilots, optometrists, etc.,
are convinced by their own review of the facts
themselves concerning the dynamic behavior
of the eye.

When an optometrist is CONVINCED that prevention
is both necessary and effective, then
she uses the concept effectively.

Thus proof is in DOING IT EFFECTIVELY.

Here is the example of a highly qualified
expert. (Second-opinion).


http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html


Now we should consider the "mantra" of the
majority-opinion OD who puts up endless
"blocks" (both intellectual and physical)
against this obvious success:

=================================

Re: Optometrists (some) AGREE with you John!

Otis> As far as "convincing" a majority-opinion OD
about your thesis -- I truly think that
is impossible.

Then you don't believe that John's method works? "Convincing" the
medical community is simple to do:

Find a bunch of myopes willing to participate in study.

Measure eye shape and dimensions with imaging, measure unaided acuity
and cycloplegic refraction prior to doing exercises.

Divide myopes randomly into two groups. Check demographics of two
groups and make sure they are similar in terms of refractive error,
age, sex. Have one group do exercises. Other group does nothing or
does sham exercises.

Measure eye shape and dimensions with imaging, measure unaided acuity
and cycloplegic refraction after doing exercises.

Compare the pre/post results of the groups. Determine if any
differences are statisically significant.

Publish in referred journal.


Judy

========================================

In fact, it must be the person himself who
reviews these issues -- and chooses to
take the necessary PREVENTIVE actions.

No amount of scientific proof (however
exact) will ever convince the majority
opinion OD that the fundamental
eye tests-out as a dynamic system.

Just my second-opinion,

Otis